Durability of Composites in the Marine Environment

  • John Summerscales
Part of the Solid Mechanics and Its Applications book series (SMIA, volume 208)


This chapter presents an overview of key considerations for the successful application of fibre reinforced composites in the marine environment. It is intended to complement and update an earlier text Searle and Summerscales (Effect of Water Absorption on Time–Temperature Dependent Strength of Unidirectional CFRP). After consideration of factors affecting the environmental resistance of conventional composites, the potential for natural fibre reinforced polymer composites is briefly discussed. Finally it is argued that Quantitative Life Cycle Assessment is essential to establish the “sustainability” of any system.


Cavitation Erosion Bast Fibre Fractional Free Volume Nickel Aluminium Bronze Cavitation Erosion Resistance 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The author is grateful to colleagues, Jasper Graham-Jones and Stephen Grove, for their respective comments on the draft manuscript of this Chapter. Thanks are also due to Paul Harder Cohen (KMT Nord in Denmark) for additional references on cavitation erosion of composites.


  1. 1.
    Pritchard G (1999) Reinforced plastics durability. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge. ISBN: 1 85573 320 XGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harris B (2003) Fatigue in composites: science and technology of the fatigue response of fibre-reinforced plastics. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge. ISBN: 978 1 85573 608 5Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Martin R (2008) Ageing of composites. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge. ISBN: 1 84569 352 3Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Searle TJ, Summerscales J (1999) Review of the durability of marine laminates, chapter 7. In Pritchard G (1999) Reinforced plastics durability. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge. ISBN: 1 85573 320 X, pp 219–266Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Davies P, Choqueuse D, Roy A (2003) Fatigue and durability of marine composites, chapter 27. In: Harris B (2003) Fatigue in composites: science and technology of the fatigue response of fibre-reinforced plastics. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge. ISBN: 978 1 85573 608 5, pp 709–729Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davies P, Choqueuse D (2008) Ageing of composites in marine vessels, chapter 12. In Martin R (2008) Ageing of composites. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge. ISBN: 1 84569 352 3, pp 326–353Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Choqueuse D, Davies P (2008) Ageing of composites in underwater applications, chapter 18. In Martin R (2008) Ageing of composites. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge. ISBN: 1 84569 352 3, pp 467–517Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Davies P, Choqueuse D, Devaux H (2012) Failure of polymer matrix composites in marine and off-shore applications, chapter 10. In: Robinson P, Greenhalgh E, Pinho S (eds) Failure mechanisms in polymer matrix composites: criteria, testing and industrial applications. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge. ISBN: 987 1 84569 750 1, pp 300–336Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Verdu J, Colin X (2012) Humid aging of polymers and organic matrix composites, Ifremer-ONR Workshop on the Durability of composites in a marine environment, Nantes, pp 27–33 of the abstracts bookGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Derrien K, Gilormini P (2009) The effect of moisture-induced swelling on the absorption capacity of transversely isotropic elastic polymer-matrix composites. Int J Solids Struct 46(6):1547–1553Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacquemin F, Fréour S (2012) Water-mechanical property coupling, Ifremer-ONR Workshop on the durability of composites in a marine environment. Nantes, pp 41–46 of the abstracts bookGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nakada M, Miyano Y (2012), Accelerated testing methodology for long term durability of CFRP, Ifremer-ONR Workshop on the Durability of composites in a marine environment, Nantes, pp 47–52 of the abstracts bookGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Perreux D (2012) Life prediction of composite materials under complex loading, Ifremer-ONR workshop on the durability of composites in a marine environment, Nantes, pp 75–80 of the abstracts bookGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Summerscales J (1994) Non-destructive measurement of the moisture content in fibre-reinforced plastics. Br J Nondestr Test 36(2):64–72Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ISO 13003:2003 International standard: fibre-reinforced plastics: determination of fatigue properties under cyclic loading conditions. BSI Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Basquin OH (1910) The exponential law of endurance tests. Proc Am Soc Test Mater 10(2):625–630Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Stinchcomb WW, Reifsnider KL (1979) Fatigue damage mechanisms in composite materials: a review, ASTM STP675 Fatigue Mechanisms, American Society for Testing and Materials, pp 762–787Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Post NL, Case SW, Lesko JJ (2008) Modeling the variable amplitude fatigue of composite materials: a review and evaluation of the state of the art for spectrum loading. Int J Fatigue 30(12):2064–2086Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Passipoularidis VA, Philippidis TP (2009) A study of factors affecting life prediction of composites under spectrum loading. Int J Fatigue 31(3):408–417Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Vassilopoulos AP, Manshadi BD, Keller T (2010) Influence of the constant life diagram formulation on the fatigue life prediction of composite materials. Int J Fatigue 32(4):659–669Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Qian P-Y, Xu Y, Fusetani N (2010) Natural products as antifouling compounds: recent progress and future perspectives. Biofouling: J Bioadhesion Biofilm Res 26(2):223–234Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Hoare C, Thompson RC (1997) Microscopic plastic: a shore thing. Mar Conserv 3(11):4Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thompson RC, Olsen Y, Mitchell RP, Davis A, Rowland SJ, John AWG, McGonigle D, Russell AE (2004) Lost at sea: where does all the plastic go? Science 304(5672):838Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thompson R, Moore C, Andrady A, Gregory M, Takada H, Weisberg S (2005) Letter: new directions in plastic debris. Science 310(5751):1117Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Genzer J, Efimenko K (2006) Recent developments in superhydrophobic surfaces and their relevance to marine fouling: a review. Biofouling: J Bioadhesion Biofilm Res 22(5):339–360Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pérez-Roa RE, Anderson MA, Rittschof D, Orihuela B, Wendt D, Kowalke GL, Noguera DR (2008) Inhibition of barnacle (Amphibalanus amphitrite) cyprid settlement by means of localized, pulsed electric fields. Biofouling: J Bioadhesion Biofilm Res 24(3):177–184Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liedert R, Kesel AB (2005) Biomimetic fouling control using microstructured surfaces, Bionics: innovations inspired by nature SEB annual meeting, society for experimental biology, Barcelona. Poster paperGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kesel A, Liedert R (2006) Antifouling nach biologischem Vorbild, Hochschule Bremen Forschungsbericht 2006, pp 107–108Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ralston E, Swain G (2009) Bioinspiration—the solution for biofouling control? Bioinspiration Biomimetics 4(1):015007Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Scardino AJ, de Nys R (2011) Mini review: biomimetic models and bioinspired surfaces for fouling control. Biofouling: J Bioadhesion Biofilm Res 27(1):73–86Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Sullivan T, Regan F (2011) The characterization, replication and testing of dermal denticles of Scyliorhinus canicula for physical mechanisms of biofouling prevention. Bioinspiration Biomimetics 6(4):046001Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Schumacher JF, Aldred N, Callow ME, Finlay JA, Callow JA, Clare AS, Brennan AB (2007) Species specific engineered antifouling topologies: correlations between the settlement of algal zoospores and barnacle cyprids. Biofouling Bioadhesion Biofilm Res 23(5–6):307–317Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Euler M (1756) Théorie plus complète des machines qui sont mises en movement par la réaction de l’eau. L’Académie Royale des Sciences et Belles Lettres, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reynolds O (1873) The causes of the racing of the engines of screw steamers investigated theoretically and by experiment. Trans Inst Naval Architects 14:56–67Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thornycroft JI, Barnaby SW (1895) Torpedo boat destroyers, minutes of the proceedings (Institution of Civil Engineers) 122:51–69Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Strutt JW (1917) On the pressure developed in a liquid during the collapse of a spherical cavity. Philos Mag Ser 6 34(200):94–98Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Eisenberg P (1950) On the mechanisms and prevention of cavitation. Navy Department David W Taylor Model Basin Report 712, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Karimi A, Martin JL (1986) Cavitation erosion of materials. Int Metals Rev 31(1):1–26Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Anon (2003) World’s largest composite propeller successfully completes sea trials. Naval Architect 16Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Anon (2012) The intelligent propeller made of carbon fiber. Accessed 16:37 on 19 Aug 2013
  41. 41.
    Black S (2011) Composite propeller for Royal Navy minehunter: composite-for-metal replacement brings multiple benefits. High-Perform Compos 19(5):70–72Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hardy G (2003) New composites reduce cavitations in giant marine propeller tests. Mater World 11(7):8Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Leenders W, van Santen M (2010) Composite main propeller for Dutch minehunter. EuroNaval, ParisGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Motley MR, Liu Z, Young YL (2009) Utilizing fluid–structure interactions to improve energy efficiency of composite marine propellers in spatially varying wake. Compos Struct 90(3):304–313Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Searle TJ (1998) The manufacture of marine propellers in moulded anisotropic polymer composites, PhD thesis, University of PlymouthGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Searle TJ (1999) Composites final frontier: a composites propeller for commercial marine applications. Design Eng 51–52Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Searle T, Short D (1994) Are composite propellers the way forward for small boats? Mater World 2(2):69–70Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Searle T, Chudley J, Short D (1993) Composites offer advantages for propellers. Reinf Plast 37(12):24–26Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Anon (2012) Green marine build one of the world’s largest-ever composite rudders. Accessed 16:39 on 19 Aug 2013
  50. 50.
    Anon (2012) Rudders and stocks. Accessed 16:41 on 19 Aug 2013
  51. 51.
    Griffiths R (2006) Rudder gets new twist with composites: the U.S. Navy’s specially contoured ship rudder commands composite construction. Compos Technol 12(4):60–62Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Young YL (2007) Hydroelastic behavior of flexible composite propellers in wake inflow. Proceedings of the 16th international conference on composite materials, (ICCM 16). Kyoto/TokyoGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Young YL (2008) Fluid–structure interaction analysis of flexible composite marine propellers. J Fluids Struct 24(6):799–818Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Kallas DH, Lichtman JZ (1968) Chapter 2: cavitation erosion. In: Rosato DV, Schwartz RT (eds) Environmental effects on polymeric materials, vol 1., Environments, Interscience, London-Sydney-New York, pp 223–280Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Bhagat RB (1987) Cavitation erosion of composites: a materials perspective. J Mater Sci Lett 6(12):1473–1475Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Djordjevic V, Kreiner J, Stojanovic Ζ (1988) Cavitation erosion approximation of composite materials. Preprints 33rd international symposium: materials—pathway to the future, SAMPE, Anaheim CA, pp 1561–1570Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Rao PV (1988) Evaluation of epoxy resins in flow cavitation erosion. Wear 122(1):77–96Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Saetre O (1991) Testing of composite pipes in high velocity seawater, 10th international OMAE conference. Stavanger, IIIB/577Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Hammond DA, Amateau MF, Queeney RA (1993) Cavitation erosion performance of fiber reinforced composites. J Compos Mater 27(16):1522–1544Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Lindheim T (1995) Erosion performance of glass fibre reinforced plastics (GRP), Revue de l’Institut Francais du Petrole, 50(1):83–95Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    Light KH (2005) Development of a cavitation erosion resistant advanced material system. MS dissertation, University of Maine, Aug 2005Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Yamatogi T, Murayama H, Uzawa K, Kageyama K, Watanabe N (2009) Study of cavitation erosion of composite materials for marine propeller. Proceedings of ICCM-17. Edinburgh, 27–31 July 2009Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Short D (2012) Private communication (e-mail of Monday 15 Oct 2012 at 17:23)Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hill C, Hughes M (2010) Natural fibre reinforced composites opportunities and challenges. J Biobased Mater Bioenergy 4:148–158Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Pandey JK, Ahn SH, Lee CS, Mohanty AK, Misra M (2010) Recent advances in the application of natural fiber-reinforced composites. Macromol Mater Eng 295:975–989Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Summerscales J, Dissanayake N, Hall W, Virk AS (2010) A review of bast fibres and their composites. Part 1: fibres as reinforcements. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 41(10):1329–1335Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Summerscales J, Dissanayake N, Hall W, Virk AS (2010) A review of bast fibres and their composites. Part 2: composites. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 41(10):1336–1344Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ku H, Wang H, Pattarachaiyakoop N, Trada M (2011) A review on the tensile properties of natural fiber reinforced polymer composites. Compos B Eng 42(4):856–873Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    La Mantia FP, Morreale M (2011) Green composites: a brief review. Compos A Appl Sci Manuf 42(6):579–588Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Zini E, Scandola M (2011) Green composites: an overview. Polym Compos 32(12):1905–1915Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Mukherjee T, Kao N (2011) PLA based biopolymer reinforced with natural fibre: a review. J Polym Environ 19(3):714–725Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hughes M (2012) Defects in natural fibres: their origin, characteristics and implications for natural fibre-reinforced composites. J Mater Sci 47(2):599–609Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Shahzad A (2012) Hemp fiber and its composites—a review. J Compos Mater 46(8):973–986Google Scholar
  74. 74.
    Faruk O, Bledzki AK, Fink H-P, Sain M (2012) Biocomposites reinforced with natural fibers: 2000–2010. Prog Polym Sci 37(11):1552–1596Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Ho M-P, Wang H, Lee J-H, Ho C-K, Lau K-T, Leng J, Hui D (2012) Critical factors on manufacturing processes of natural fibre composites. Compos B Eng 43(8):3549–3562Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Summerscales J, Grove S (2013) Manufacturing methods for natural fibre composites, chapter 16. In: Hodzic A, Shanks R (eds) Handbook of natural fibre composites: properties, processes, failure and applications. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge Accepted on 26 Sept 2012Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Summerscales J, Virk AS, Hall W (2013) A review of bast fibres and their composites. Part 3: modelling. Compos Part A: Appl Sci Manuf 44(1):132–139Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Costa FHMM, D’Almeida JRM (1999) Effect of water absorption on the mechanical properties of sisal and jute fiber composites. Polym-Plast Technol Eng 38(5):1081–1094Google Scholar
  79. 79.
    Abdul Khalil HPS, Rozman HD, Ahmad MN, Ismail H (2000) Acetylated plant-fiber reinforced polyester composites: a study of mechanical, hygrothermal, and aging characteristics. Polym-Plast Technol Eng 39(4):757–781Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Hill CAS, Abdul Khalil HPS (2000) Effect of fiber treatments on mechanical properties of coir or oil palm fiber reinforced polyester composites. J Appl Polym Sci 78(9):1685–1697Google Scholar
  81. 81.
    Hill CAS, Abdul Khalil HPS, Hale MD (1998) A study of the potential of acetylation to improve the properties of plant fibres. Ind Crops Prod 8(1):53–63Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Shah DU, Schubel PJ, Clifford MJ, Licence P (2012) Fatigue characterisation of plant fibre composites for rotor blade applications. JEC Compos Mag 73:51–54Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Shah DU, Schubel PJ, Clifford MJ, Licence P (2013) Fatigue life evaluation of aligned plant fibre composites through S–N curves and constant-life diagrams. Compos Sci Technol 74:139–149Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Ishimaru N, Tsukegi T, Wakisaka M, Shirai Y, Nishida H (2012) Effects of poly(l-lactic acid) hydrolysis on attachment of barnacle cypris larvae. Polym Degrad Stab 97(11):2170–2176Google Scholar
  85. 85.
    World Commission on Environment and Development (1987) Our common future (The Brundtland Report). Oxford Paperbacks, Oxford. ISBN: 0-19-282080-XGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Dissanayake NPJ, Summerscales J (2013) Life cycle assessment for natural fibre composites. In: Thakur VK (ed) Green composites from natural resources. Taylor and Francis Group LLC, USA. ISBN: 978-1-4665-7069-6Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    ISO/TR 14047:2003(E) Environmental management: life cycle impact assessment—examples of application of ISO14042. International Organisation for Standards. ISBN: 0-580-43112-6Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Azapagic A, Emsley A, Hamerton I (2003) In: Hamerton I (ed) Polymers, the environment and sustainable development. Wiley. ISBN: 0-471-87741-7Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Azapagic A, Perdan S, Clift R (eds) (2004) Sustainable development in practice: case studies for engineers and scientists. Wiley, New York. ISBN: 0-470-85609-2Google Scholar
  90. 90.
    BS 8905:2011 Framework for the assessment of the sustainable use of materials: guidance. BSI Group, LondonGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Singh M, Summerscales J, Wittamore K (2010) Disposal of composite boats and other marine composites, chapter 18 (pages 495–519). In: Goodship V (ed) Management, recycling and reuse of waste composites. Woodhead Publishing, Cambridge. ISBN: 978-1-84569-462-3 (book). ISBN: 978-1-84569-462-3 (e-book). CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, 2010. ISBN: 978-1-4398-0104-8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Advanced Composites Manufacturing Centre, School of Marine Science and EngineeringPlymouth UniversityPlymouthEngland

Personalised recommendations